I was contacted by the media today

[Robert Hairless]

Dr. Peter:

Actually, there is a parallel. It's the same logic as "don't vote for the guy you really want, because he won't win anyways." "Don't bother giving an interview, because it won't make a difference anyways". It's the same thing in a different form.

Nope. Actually, there is no such parallel whatsoever. It is not the same logic at all, not in any way, no matter how often you say so.

Voting requires no expertise. Anyone who meets the statutory requirements can vote. No skill is involved. Someone without even the ability to read or reason logically can vote. The vote cast by such a person will have just as much effect as the vote cast by someone who has evaluted the issues and came to a rational decision. Even dead men have been known to vote.

Voting, at least in this country, is also anonymous. No one knows when you vote stupidly or against the tide of other voters.

The machinery of voting in this country also is supposed to be unbiassed. I suppose you could accuse a voting machine of being biased against firearms but that accusation would get you strange looks even from other gun owners.

It rarely makes sense to refrain from voting if one has any reasonable basis for making a choice of options but it makes darned good sense to refrain from speaking when what one says is likely to create or increase damage to oneself or to whatever one cherishes. Mark Twain understood that it is "better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." He did not say that it is better not to vote. That is one reason why a good lawyer tells his client to keep his mouth shut in front of reporters.

Look at the snippets of videos on YouTube and in other places of people being made to seem ludicrous simply by taking moments out of context. Those people include candidates who are skilled and drilled in handling interviews. Someone who has no such skill is raw meat to a reporter for a newspaper biased against him or the cause he attempts to advocate. That's a reason why good lawyers tell their clients to keep their mouths shut when questioned by reporters. Smart clients are humble and follow that advice. Other clients know that they can outwit the reporters and wind up trying to figure out, as they try to stave off the romantic advances of Mongo their cellmate, what went wrong.

 

[rbernie]

I'm a little surprised how many people are telling you not to do it. I kind of think we need to jump at every chance we get to improve the image of gun ownership. That doesn't mean winning the debate, but reaching out to people and trying to understand their concerns and help them see us as reasonable, rational, and good people.

But it's not a debate. It's a means by which the author collects data points to be used in writing an editorial. By participating, the data chosen to make us seem foolish (usually by taking a comment and placing so far out of context that it seems nonsensical) looks like it's coming from the gun community itself.

Make no mistake - there is no good that can come of this. It's been tried many many times and the net result is always the same - the article spouts mistruths for paragraph after paragraph and then there's one sentence from the gunnie community that, when placed into the article in just the proper place, makes us all look like boobs.

There is no give and take. There is no intent to engage in public debate. There is no desire to learn. You're doing their research for them - that's all.

 

[Gary Frost]

As president of our local USPSA club I was asked to do an interview with the hometown paper. The reporter wanted to know just what you malitia boys were up to out there. I declined because I knew it was going to be a hack job.

I know that trying to get the truth in print can be overpowering, however when you loose before you start the damage could be huge. I am assuming here your friends, family, workmates, ect. would have access to what this reporter is going to say you said. In my case I smelled a rat, maybe you should give this the smell test also.

 

[ShooterMcGavin]

Do any of you guys actually read through a thread before spouting off your answer to the question in the first post?? He already said he is NOT doing the interview about 15 posts ago:

He got back to me tonight and said that he does not have enough time for an interview and would instead like me to just type out an email with some basics of my group so that will be much easier.

A wise man once said "Seek first to understand, and then to be understood".

kd7nqb, I think a written response is a much better solution than an interview.

 

[coelacanth]

before you do anything else. . . . .

e-mail him the link to the London Times article of Sept. 8th by Robert Munday and tell him if he wants an interview he can have one with the discussion of that article as it's theme.

 

[Ieyasu]

Do any of you guys actually read through a thread before spouting off your answer to the question in the first post??

That affliction seems all to common around here. Very frustrating.

 

[Trebor]

I used to work as a reporter so I have a little different perspective. I just wrote a response that is so long I thought it deserved it's onw thread.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=3700834#post3700834

 

[kd7nqb]

The editor has now asked for simply a written statement and I will take care of that later today.

 

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

It rarely makes sense to refrain from voting if one has any reasonable basis for making a choice of options but it makes darned good sense to refrain from speaking when what one says is likely to create or increase damage to oneself or to whatever one cherishes. Mark Twain understood that it is "better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." He did not say that it is better not to vote. That is one reason why a good lawyer tells his client to keep his mouth shut in front of reporters.

Look at the snippets of videos on YouTube and in other places of people being made to seem ludicrous simply by taking moments out of context. Those people include candidates who are skilled and drilled in handling interviews. Someone who has no such skill is raw meat to a reporter for a newspaper biased against him or the cause he attempts to advocate. That's a reason why good lawyers tell their clients to keep their mouths shut when questioned by reporters. Smart clients are humble and follow that advice. Other clients know that they can outwit the reporters and wind up trying to figure out, as they try to stave off the romantic advances of Mongo their cellmate, what went wrong.

If you wish to argue that having an interview with a 'hackjob' would only damage one's reputation as a result of others taking and editing clips out of context, I then argue that any action involving partisan hacks will invariably end up doing no good whatsoever since the people who believe in such crap are registered voters, which after a thorough examination leaves the intelligents with nothing as long as the hacks are continue with their editing and the people believing their garbage with no chance of seeing refuting arguments and gaining knowledge.

 

[MinnMooney]

Written questions in advance and written replies from you.

Tell them it fits your schedule better if they email you questions and you respond. YOU CAN THEN EVEN POST YOUR RESPONSES ON HERE, or PRINT THEM OUT FOR YOUR CLUB before you even give them to the journalist.

from : davinci


I whole-heartedly agree with davinci. Many politicians do the same thing due to the fact that they get misquoted so often by reporters.
You'd have all of THR purusing the questions and making suggestions on the replies. The end result would still be yours, of course, but think of the vast background that you'd be tapping into!

 

[javacodeman]

Any follow up here? Did you do the interview? If so, how did it go? If you have a copy of the article, post it here.

java

 

[LaVere]

Do like congress does. Add at the end of your speech well in this case interview.
" I choose to extend and or revise my remarks for the record before publication"

So the next day congressmen can change their remarks and add what ever they want to the record.


Does any one besides me think this is wrong at best for them to be able to do this?

 

[Mr. Designer]

I wouldn't waste my time

The people that read a left-wing paper will not be swayed by your fact based argument. Personally I wouldn't waste my time, but hey do what you think is best.

 

[WayneConrad]

The people that read a left-wing paper will not be swayed by your fact based argument.

None of them? Not one?

 

[Nicky Santoro]

I was contacted by the media today

BTDT. I informed the reporter that if I was quoted incorrectly or out of context I would come after him personally. It was, of course, a hit piece on 2A but at least I was quoted correctly. Expect no more. Demand no less.

 

[fantacmet]

Considering the history of the newpaper, most of it's reporters, as well as PSU's head of security, who threataned to fire one of his employees just for bringing up ORS 166.170, not doing the interview is probably a good thing. He probably would have had you arrested the enxt timehe saw you as a threat to the safety and security of the students. I wrote to him inquiring asking if they abided by Oregon Law, or if they had a different policy as Iw as considering being a student. His response was Oregon Law means nothing, there are no guns on campus but his, and gun or not if I step foot on campus I will be placed under arrest, and since he's charged with protecting a university good luck fighting him in court since he has the school attorneys on his side and since I'm a potential student I can't afford a lawyer let alone a decent one so the arrest would probably hold upw ith whatever he wanted it to say. The guy is a jerk, and an anti- and well yeah y'all can figure the rest. Smart move not doing that interview.